Advertisement

The European Journal of Development Research

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 1107–1125 | Cite as

Local Ownership as Global Governance

  • Jon Harald Sande LieEmail author
Original Article
  • 130 Downloads

Abstract

The ownership discourse has profoundly altered the management of development aid. Nominally, it seeks to instil greater freedom as well as responsibilities among aid recipients. Revisiting two ethnographic studies (the World Bank–Uganda partnership and NGO relations in Ethiopia), this article shows how ‘ownership’ practices also involve new forms of tacit governance mechanisms that enable the donor to retain control. By using ‘freedom’ as a formula underpinning governance at a distance, developmentality is made contingent on the donor’s ability to frame the partnership and the conditions under which the recipient exercises the freedom that has been granted.

Keywords

Developmentality Ethiopia Governance Ownership Partnership Uganda World Bank 

Résumé

Le débat à propos de la propriété de l’aide développementale a profondément altéré la gestion de cette aide. Normalement, ce discours vise à susciter plus de liberté, aussi que plus de responsabilité, entre les récipiendaires d’aide. Dans cet article, on revient sur deux études ethnographiques (le partenariat entre la Banque Mondiale et l’Uganda, et les relations des ONGs en Ethiopie), et on montre comment les pratiques de « propriété » utilisent aussi des nouvelles formes de mécaniques tacites de gouvernance, qui permettent aux donneurs de maintenir le contrôle. En utilisant la « liberté » comme une formule qui garantit la gouvernance même à distance, la « dévelopmentalité » (en anglais : developmentality) est donc subordonnée à la capacité des donneurs à encadrer le partenariat avec les récipiendaires, et aussi les conditions dans lesquels le récipiendaire exerce la liberté qui leur a été accordé.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been undertaken as part of the project ‘Developmentality and the anthropology of partnership’, funded by the Research Council of Norway (Grant No. 262524).

References

  1. Abrahamsen, R. 2004. The power of partnerships in global governance. Third World Quarterly 25 (8): 1453–1467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, S.B., and S. Jensen. 2017. Partnerships as interpellation. European Journal of Development Research 29: 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borchgrevink, A. 2008. Limits to donor influence: Ethiopia, aid and conditionality. Forum for Development Studies 35 (2): 195–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, W. 2012. A question of agency: Africa in international politics. Third World Quarterly 33 (10): 1889–1908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buiter, W.H. 2010. ‘Country ownership’: a term whose time has gone. In Deconstructing development discourse: Buzzwords and fuzzwords, ed. A. Cornwall and D. Eade, 223–230. Rugby (UK): Practical Action.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Carvalho, B., and J.H.S. Lie. 2015. A great power performance: Norway, status and the policy of involvement. In Small states and status seeking, ed. B. de Carvalho and I.B. Neumann, 56–72. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. de Carvalho, B., N.N. Schia, and X. Guillaume. 2018. Everyday sovereignty: international experts, brokers and local ownership in peacebuilding Liberia. European Journal of International Relations.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066118759178.Google Scholar
  8. Chambers, R. 1995. Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development. In Power and participatory Development, eds. N. Nelson, and S. Wright, 30–42. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooke, B., and U. Kothari. 2001. The case for participation as tyranny. In Participation: The new tyranny?, ed. B. Cooke and U. Kothari, 1–15. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  10. Cornwall, A. (ed.). 2011. The participation reader. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  11. Dean, M. 1999. Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  12. Eriksen, S.S. 2010. The theory of failure and the failure of theory: ‘State failure’, the idea of the state and the practice of state building. Comparative Social Research 27: 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Escobar, A. 2012. Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. 1991. Governmentality [1978]. In The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality, ed. G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller, 87–104. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gledhill, J. 2000. Power and its disguises: Anthropological perspectives on politics. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  16. Gould, J. 2005. Poverty, politics and states of partnership. In The new conditionality: The politics of poverty reduction strategies, ed. J. Gould, 1–16. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  17. Hasselskog, M., and I. Schierenbeck. 2017. The ownership paradox: Continuity and change. Forum for Development Studies 44 (3): 323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kamruzzaman, P. 2009. Poverty reduction strategy papers and the rhetoric of participation. Development in Practice 19 (1): 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kjær, P.F., and A. Vetterlein. 2018. Regulatory governance: rules, resistance and responsibility. Contemporary Politics.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2018.1452527.Google Scholar
  20. Krogstad, E. 2014. Local ownership as dependence management: inviting the coloniser back. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 8 (2–3): 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li, T.M. 2007. The will to improve. Governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lie, J.H.S. 2004. Discursive development order and local informal practices: a development project in Northern Ethiopia. Oslo: Department of Social Anthropology, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  23. Lie, J.H.S. 2015. Developmentality: An Ethnography of the World Bank-Uganda Partnership. New York: Berghahn.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lie, J.H.S. 2018. Donor-driven state formation: Friction in the World Bank-Uganda Partnership. In Uganda. The dynamics of neoliberal transformation, ed. J. Wiegratz, G. Martiniello, and E. Greco, 43–59. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  25. McCourt, W. 2017. Lost in translation: The World Bank and the Paris Declaration. Development Policy Review 1: 5.  https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12297.Google Scholar
  26. Mosse, D. 2004. Is good policy unimplementable? Reflections on the ethnography of aid policy and practice. Development and Change 35 (4): 639–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mosse, D. 2005. Cultivating development: An ethnography of aid policy and practice. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  28. Narten, J. 2009. The dilemmas of promoting ‘local ownership’: the case of postwar Kosovo. In The dilemmas of state building: Confronting the contradictions of postwar peace operations, eds. R. Paris and T. Sisk, 252–283. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Ong, A. 2006. Neoliberalism as exception: Mutations in citizenship and sovereignty. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paris Declaration (2005). Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Ownership, harmonization, alignment, results and mutual accountability. Paris, High Level Forum, February 28–March 2, 2005.Google Scholar
  31. Pouligny, B. 2009. Local ownership. In Post-conflict peacebuilding: A lexicon, ed. V. Chetail, 174–187. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Randel, J., T. German, and D. Ewing. 2002. The reality of aid, 2002. An independent review of poverty reduction and international development assistance. Manila: IBON.Google Scholar
  33. Rose, N., and P. Miller. 1992. Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology 43 (2): 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rottenburg, R., S.E. Merry, S.-J. Park, and J. Mugler (eds.). 2015. The world of indicators. The making of governmental knowledge through quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Schia, N.N. 2018. Franchised states and the bureaucracy of peace. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Swedlund, H.J. 2017. The development dance: How donors and recipients negotiate the delivery of foreign aid. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. USIP. 2010. Local ownership of security sector reform. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace (USIP).Google Scholar
  38. Watts, M. 2003. Development and governmentality. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 24 (1): 6–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Whitfield, L. (ed.). 2009. The politics of aid: African strategies for dealing with donors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI)OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations